Nationalism as emergent nature, nationalism as reaction

This essay consists of some unfinished philosophical ramblings and some related historical interpretations. If the philosophy is too rambling, I hope at least that the history holds some interest.

Reaction has a bad name but a rather long and complex history. For the sake of brevity, as well as relevance to us, we can place an age limit on it and date it from the onset of modernity. So, for example, a reactionary’s history might commence with the aesthetic of romanticism, that emotionally freeing and humanising response to the encroachment upon nature and the transcendent of industrialisation and urbanisation, materialism, the beginnings of mass consumption, and everything that was “modern”, say, when Beethoven composed his Symphony No. 3 in E flat major Op.55, the Eroica, between August 1804 and April 1805.

No rabble but a nation in the making

However, nationalism did not begin in reaction, and for most of its existence it has not been reactionary. Its intellectual history is usually traced to the thought of Johan Gottfried Herder, who invented the word and, in acknowledging the place of the national community, was the first thinker to challenge the distinction of sovereign and subject, replacing both within a Volk who were in no wise the eponymous common rabble. Apparently, up to this time people who could think actually thought there was only their gilded selves and the civilisationally incompetent Platonic masses. Which makes one wonder what William Shakespeare was describing nearly two centuries earlier when he wrote in King Richard II, Act 2 scene 1 of “This happy breed of men, this little world”. But, then again, there were the tribunes and the commoners of The Tragedy of Coriolanus, written c. 1605:

Sicinius Velutus: Assemble presently the people hither;
And when they bear me say ‘It shall be so
I’ the right and strength o’ the commons,’ be it either
For death, for fine, or banishment, then let them
If I say fine, cry ‘Fine;’ if death, cry ‘Death.’
Insisting on the old prerogative
And power i’ the truth o’ the cause.Aedile: I shall inform them.Junius Brutus: And when such time they have begun to cry,
Let them not cease, but with a din confused
Enforce the present execution
Of what we chance to sentence.Act III 3, scene 1

... sentiments appropriate to any modern media moghul pondering democracy and his own self. But what were the sentiments and the real will of the people themselves?

In settled times, of course, European peoples (who we might, after the modern globalist practise, term “the post-tribe”) do not require a constant expression of national community. It retires to its abode in the instincts of the people and in the personnification of the sovereign. The collective will to be ... to be secure in the possession of all that is necessary for life ... makes its settlement with the world and turns to smaller things, attenuating to a will to increase and, finally, to live collectively in a way that satisfies the intellect, the senses and the heart, and leaves no collective need unmet and no wrongdoing undone. And part of that latter, it would seem, is a Heideggerian care of altruism for suffering humanity, regardless of tribe, regardless even of race.

I think this progressive retirement of ethnocentrism is particularly condign to Europeans. With us, the imperative to be does not begin (or end) in tribal competition. It begins in the struggle against climatic circumstances under which human existence is parlous at best. The audacious European response is the act of challenging Nature herself. That is what nationalists mean when they speak of the restless creativity and prometheanism of the European race.

That does not, by the way, imply some bracing movement towards a state of, say, “greatness” or “triumph”, but a return to our one state of truth, which is great enough and which is in us always and requires that the people be healthy and whole, and their identity authentic (that is, detached from artifice, from the acquired).

In other words, of herself Nature is subsistent, not purposive. She does not destin beyond her struggle to be. Notwithstanding European creativity, then, our struggle is the endless struggle of all life, and such purposivity as may enter it is always party to that. To be precise, teleology roams the space between existence and subsistence, and never goes beyond, though to the eyes of all believers it will certainly appear to.

The evolution of European history can be understood as an expansive journey, via many set-backs and tribulations, in this cause of subsistence, from the tribe to the nation, and from the raw struggle to exist to the work of increase. The whole history of Anglo-Saxon Britain after the migrations across the North German Sea to World War II fits this paradigm. It was a process of the emergence and maturation of a post-tribal national consciousnesses in each of Britain’s constituent parts. In the south - the difficult case of the three - Bede wrote his historia nostrae nationis in 730, or thereabouts. He wrote only of the Germanics like him, not the British. But it was indicative of a transformation of indigeneity. The English were becoming a people in and of the land, and had history to prove it. Their progress was punctuated by the Viking raids, Bede’s abbey at Jarrow becoming their second monastic target after Lindisfarne (attacked 793). The great Danish invasion, however, did not occur until 835, lasting until 896 when Alfred, who styled himself King of the Anglo-Saxons, finally imposed peace. Those Danes who had reason to remain settled in East Englia and the north-east. Three generations later in 973, when the whole country was unified under a single crown with the coronation of Edgar at Bath in 973, the process of English nation-building was near complete.

Are we to assume, then, that in England between, say, the death of Harold and, far away in Weimar, Herder finding nation in the rabble there was only the dismissive judgement of the aristocracy, clergy and clerisy? Well, no. After the Conquest the Norman elites were certainly dismissive towards the English, murderously so when challenged. But in 1215 the barons obtained Magna Carta, “The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest”, from King John, and forced him to inaugurate parliament. Edward I confirmed the first and reformed the second, intruducing representatives of the commoners. He also, of course, issued the Edict of Expulsion of 1290. Before the Black Death had done its work the language spoken at court was French. After it had departed in 1350 that language was English.

Central and Western Europe seethed with rebellions and uprisings in the late Middle Ages. There were many in England after the Peasants Revolt of 1381. The last one of any seriousness was Kett’s Rebellion against the rapacious elites of the day:

In 1549 AD Robert Kett yeoman farmer of Wymondham was executed by hanging in this Castle after the defeat of the Norfolk Rebellion of which he was leader. In 1949 AD - four hundred years later - this Memorial was placed here by the citizens of Norwich in reparation and honour to a notable and courageous leader in the long struggle of the common people of England to escape from a servile life into the freedom of just conditions.

None of these rebellions were successful, of course. The historical dynamic, however, was irresistible. In her time, Elizabeth, anticipating Herder by two centuries, was wont to call herself “mere English”. And whereas her father Henry had declared, “We are, by the sufferance of God, king of England; and the kings of England in times past never had any superior but God” she was the first Tudor monarch to acknowledge that rule was, if not derived from popular consent, certainly reliant upon it. The will of the people (which is, and must be, the will to be) was proving more all-encompassing and constant than ever the will of the hereditary sovereign was.

Indeed, just forty-six years after Elizabeth’s passing, and one hundred and forty years before the fire-storm of radicalism which engendered revolution and regicide in France, a king of England was executed in Whitehall for the treason of making war (twice, in fact) on Parliament. On the scaffold he declared, “A subject and a sovereign are clean different things.”

A year and a half earlier, officers and men of the New Model Army, along with commoners, had gathered at a church in Putney to debate the rights of free Englishmen and the future Constitution of England. They were the very antithesis of a rabble. The enduring sentiment from the Putney Debates was put into words by Colonel Thomas Rainsborough, a Leveller, member of Parliament, and the highest ranking officer present. “For really,” he said, “I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he.”

The Putney Debates resonate strongly with liberals, and have their place in liberal historiography as a watershed for rights-based, constitutional liberty. But Rainsborough’s terminology affirms not just the nominal equality of any individual’s rights in the constitutional space called England. Beneath that lies the principle of belonging and kinship in which such recognition abides, and without which it reduces to a mere accountancy of bloodless civic units. Rainsborough’s “England” is not a neutral administrative space, nor even a space at all. It is the people itself. He is saying, “Each of our folk has the life inherent to us all, and no Englishman has other”. And this he is saying during a nine-year period at the close of which not far off 4% of the population was lost (as was Rainsborough himself, in fact, a year after he uttered those words).

Thus it is that the Leveller manifestos published from 1647-9 culminated in a document titled An Agreement Of The Free People of England, Tendered as a Peace-Offering to this distressed Nation. For sure, freedom and the care of altruism are “clean different things”, but collectivised in this way they are not ultimately irreconcilable as they appear in the liberal extrapolations of radical individualism and social justice, or in Kevin MacDonald’s hope-sapping analysis of the traits of individualism and altruism. In fact, they tend to the same good. The inchoate will to wholeness, as it appears in Rainsborough’s dictum and in the long history of the emergent ethnic facticity of the English, is care (1). The desire for freedom, meanwhile, is reactionary, and the reaction is to a debased quality of the lived life. This also evinces care.

There is a unity here, and it is valuable to nationalism. We do not have to think of freedom only as a liberal abstraction cleansed of human meaning and human relation and proffered us regardless of the pathologies which attend any attempt to concretise it.

The, as liberals see it, long journey towards a free life is not a going out but a coming back, a collective gesture in the direction of return by a people whose circumstances have ceased to provide the possibility to subsist. Freedom, especially, is our device too. As explained in slightly different terms earlier, it is wrought by the return to collective care, the will to be (which we may also call attention), and is the condition of what we are when we are ourselves. In a world in which freedom is the constantly referenced gold standard of human political values, it is high time that nationalist thought, for too long the preserve of authoritarians and fantasists, claimed it for itself.

And a brief history of nationalism so far

The political history of nationalism is dated from the beginning of the French Revolution in 1789. It was not a core principle of the revolutionary government, except in so much as it accommodated the Rousseau-esque principle of the sovereignty of the people. But it had utility as a focal point for French national identity in the bloodied absence of the monarchy. So from the beginning there was a nationalism of sorts, romantic in conception, democratic in appeal, and non-reactionary, within the liberal ouevre.

By the July Revolution of 1830 this vision of nationalism was deeply entrenched in the politics of the bourgeoisie (the class we might now term the metropolitan elite). It found expression far beyond France, particularly in high art. Thus, the callous Russian oppressor in Chopin’s Poland had the Mighty Handful, the Abramtsevo Colony and the Russian Revival back home. Chopin himself, effectively an exile, arrived in Paris in 1831. His greatest expression of Polish nationalism was his Polonaise in A-flat major, Op. 53, the Heroic, which he premiered in 1842 to the wild adulation of an audience of fellow exiled Poles.

Arthur Rubinstein playing the Heroic, which he described as the symbol of Polish glory. During the German occupation of Warsaw the performance of Chopin’s Polonaises was banned.

The ultimate act of the romantic imagination, however, was not this but the populist, wholly reactionary and radically ethnic nationalist volkisch movement, which originated in the late 19th century and was influential in both Germany and Austria. According to Adolf Hitler it might have won the power struggle of the post WW1 period, had it been a unified force and had its leaders known how to get their people on the streets.

The volkisch movement had its deepest root in the Reden an die deutsche Nation (Addresses to the German Nation) of Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Herder’s contemporary. The Reden were written during the period of French occupation and represent a turn for Fichte, which may have been temporary, from Kantian moral philosophy to (at least a proto) German ethnic nationalism. Since1945, such has been the belief among academics in the pathology of ethnic nationalism that serious study of Fichte’s nationalism has been avoided in the English-speaking world, while in France it has been conveniently assigned to the ethno-suicidal cultural variety. But the volkisch movement drew no such conclusion, and was as clear and unconstrained in its adoration of blood and race as a counter-weight to modernity as it could possibly be.

Alongside it was the conservative revolutionary movement, a grown-up, metapolitical reaction to the impoverishment of modern existence. In place of the populist fantasia of the volkisch movement it proferred a not always backward-glancing conservatism socialised in the Volksgemeinschaft (which can be either the German racial identity or the social phenomenon of the solidising unity of German peoplehood). It was a concept taken up aggressively by NSDAP and, indeed, through the Weimar period there was some correspondence between the two movements. In the end, the progressive idea proved an intolerable affront to the conservative instinct, and vice versa. Neither saw revolution in the other’s politics. By 1933 Himmler was so convinced of reaction’s toxicity, he began to persecute the movement. Its members scattered for cover, but they retained their ideological integrity. There were conservative revolutionaries among the 20 July Plotters.

The movement survived the death of romance in 1914-18 (for it, the romance of the enspiriting nature of combat) and it survived National Socialism. But liberalism has survived it. Of course, all the reaction of the 19th and 20th centuries has suffered the same depressing fate. To be sure, fascism, which was rooted in Hegel’s perfectly naive assumptions about race and Providence, and emerged on the road to Rome via the thoughts of Georges Sorel, Charles Maurras, Giovanni Gentile and his friend Benedetto Croce, remains part of the Italian body politic to this day. But to what effect is another matter. Liberalism, aided and abetted by its entwinement with modernity, given two deadly Jewish twists, and, finally, pimped as the socio-economic context for globalisation, has survived. European Man, that demi-god of creativity and adventure, is being reduced to Homo deracinatus. Our children and theirs will know a life as de-nationed and denatured cyphers interchangeable with Africans and Asians and any others you care to mention. Compliant consumers, wage slaves all, immersed in a world of endless, morally debasing entertainment without the possibility of political struggle.

As dissenters and men of ideas surveying reaction’s long and tragic history, we can’t take much pride in, or hope from, our own reaction. We are too atomised. We have been comprehensively excluded from mainstream intellectual life (a function of globalisation and Jewish hostility to European blood, and of the self-estrangement which liberalism and the modern life engender). It is costly, and constrains us from any public engagement beyond electoral politcs. We have no aesthetic, for example. We have no Chopin. The last wave of romantic nationalist composition - Edward Elgar, Jean Sibelius, Ralph Vaughan-Williams, Ottorino Respighi - faded to silence before any possibility of the demographic horror which awaits our innocent, betrayed children was understood.

But most of all, we have no intellectual movement and no proposal. There is the European New Right, it is true. But its intellectual product is hardly more than a re-statement of what went before, in that more promising age. It is not new. It is not possessed of something that was missing previously. It does not contain the seeds of present revolution. In America there is race-realism, and the critique of Jewry. But they are not such seeds, indeed, they are not in the least politically viable. Bereft of direction, then, Anglosphere nationalists are reduced to waiting for the beast to be exhausted while we console ourselves with the desperate hope that “Worse is better”, when it’s all too likely just worse.

Meanwhile, public faith in politicians is sunk at the bottom of some ocean trench, the parties are identical, the politics identi-kit, all the really great issues of the age are removed from the discourse. Endless debt and the proximity of collapse overhang everything. Yet still, somehow, the whole production staggers on from election to election, government to government. More than that, the dynamic of liberalism has come to a hard stop against Nature itself. The project of the individual is at its limit. The semiotics of liberty have ceased to persuade, never mind inspire. There is nothing left to believe in.

In one sense, Western civilisation has been here before, in France in the Fin de siecle period of the 1880s and 1890s. Although reaction was firmly on the intellectual menu then in a way it isn’t now, there was a pessimistic, even cynical character to the public mood. The modern world of decadence, materialism, and liberal democratic values had made the bourgeois young of (in particular) Paris sick with the very depletion it engendered in them. They anticipated a vitalistic, revolutionary sweeping away, a burning out of all traces of corruption, much as the new idealists of the left agitate for today, and the heirs of Ioannis Metaxas in Golden Dawn. If one is not much of an optimist, and if there is a Spenglerian inevitability to the path of revolution, then this tells you something about where we might be now.

(1) care in that Heideggerian sense of the character of the engagement of being with life.

Comments:

Now hast thou but one bare hour to live,
And then thou must be damn’d perpetually!
Stand still, you ever-moving spheres of heaven,
That time may cease, and midnight never come;
Fair Nature’s eye, rise, rise again, and make
Perpetual day; or let this hour be but
A year, a month, a week, a natural day,
That Faustus may repent and save his soul!
O lente, lente currite, noctis equi!

But then again history deals in such strange and unexpected currencies.

Meh. I think all that is needed for our effete friend James G to get with the program is a shot of palingenesis straight to the scrotum. Of course assuming his balls could be located - a dubious proposition.

“Dolors” and “hedons”? LOL. A real thinker (not to be confused with a pretentious fag) would be satisfied to speak in terms of excitation and inhibition.

What is it you can’t understand, CC? Surely the non-correlation between the respective histories of European nationhood and European nationalism tells you something? Like: liberalism does not account for much of the former, but reaction to liberalism accounts for most of the latter.

.
..
....
This essay is one of the most brilliant pieces of (what I would call) “White Nationalism” that I have seen. Particularly in its first three quarters it is absolutely brilliant. But towards its conclusion it veers into a pessimism that seems to almost willfully ignore gains of White Nationalism, possibilities and avenues for action. By the essay’s end, it augurs a valid level of pessimism and grimness of trajectory, present to future, which is (by the reckoning of some intelligent MR folks), necessary to comprehend prior to positive action. Perhaps I have indulged pain and despair enough, and that is why I have moved beyond pessimism such. But I do not want my opinion that its conclusion is a bit too apathetic to distract from the overall value of this piece, which is full with gems. Some of my favorites being:

I think this progressive retirement of ethnocentrism is particularly condign to Europeans. With us, the imperative to be does not begin (or end) in tribal competition. It begins in the struggle against climatic circumstances under which human existence is parlous at best. The audacious European response is the act of challenging Nature herself. That is what nationalists mean when they speak of the restless creativity and prometheanism of the European race.

In descriptiveness of a positive characteristic of Europeans, practically as articulate as one can be.

The will of the people (which is, and must be, the will to be) was proving more all-encompassing and constant than ever the will of the hereditary sovereign was.

An outstanding perspective, providing an excellent argument as to why leadership needs to rotate, at least some, among the population.

Thus it is that the Leveller manifestos published from 1647-9 culminated in a document titled An Agreement Of The Free People of England, Tendered as a Peace-Offering to this distressed Nation. For sure, freedom and the care of altruism are “clean different things”, but collectivised in this way they are not ultimately irreconcilable as they appear in the liberal extrapolations of radical individualism and social justice, or in Kevin MacDonald’s hope-sapping analysis of the traits of individualism and altruism. In fact, they tend to the same good. The inchoate will to wholeness, as it appears in Rainsborough’s dictum and in the long history of the emergent ethnic facticity of the English, is care*. The desire for freedom, meanwhile, is reactionary, and the reaction is to a debased quality of the lived life. This also evinces care.

There is a unity here, and it is valuable to nationalism. We do not have to think of freedom only as a liberal abstraction cleansed of human meaning and human relation and proffered us regardless of the pathologies which attend any attempt to concretise it.

In a world in which freedom is the constantly referenced gold standard of human political values, it is high time that nationalist thought, for too long the preserve of authoritarians and fantasists, claimed it for itself.

Wonderful argument as to why freedom and individualism need to be comprehended by our White nationalist side; as well as providing indication as to why they have not been.

Given GW’s critique of MacDonald’s “hope sapping”, I wonder then, why he yields to hope sapping by essays’ end? Again, perhaps he sees it as a duty to instill sufficient pessimism in readership so that they competently understand just how daunting the task at hand is.

I love the essay up to this point, where it begins: “But most of all, we have no intellectual movement and no proposal”

After that, GW seems to propose nothing but the hope of collapse: its culling of the corrupt among us and providing the only opportunity for pro-activity.

Obviously, I disagree.

Not that we shouldn’t hope for, or even induce the “system” to collapse, but that we have no unifying intellectual movement on the table to move forward with.

.....

P.S.
Chopin is greatest expression of Polish nationalism was his Polonaise in A-flat major, Op. 53, “the Heroic”, which he premiered in 1842 to the wild adulation of an audience of fellow exiled Poles.

I am inarticulate as to why, but I have found Chopin second to none in creating an atmosphere conducive to intellectual conversation.

Geesh! I never thought I’d be admiring certain aspects of the Soviet Union; but then again, I never thought the US Armed Forces would fall prey to the sodomite-socialists’ agenda. Did ya’ll know June 16 was declared sodomite day in the U.S. military? Or that Obama proclaimed June “Gay Pride Month”?

sarc on - Does anyone know if any mooslim militaries celebrate June 16 as sodomite day? Did not Ahmadinejad declare June to be “Gay Pride Month” in Iran? - sarc off

This may be semantic pettiness, but why exactly do you insist on using the term “nationalism”? Is it really the best descriptor of our movement? There are many varieties of nationalism. Even “ethnonationalism” isn’t quite satisfactory. We are “racial nationalists”, “white nationalists”, or, back in the day, “racists”.

For what it’s worth, if we’re concerned about the mind-closing connotations of “racist”, why not just call ourselves “Occidentalists” (as I do), or “Europists”? We may all have sub-racial national or regional attachments, but our real concern is with racial preservation. That should be recognized to take precedence in the scale of our affections. Otherwise, we’re merely “patriots”.

On the idea that ‘worst is better’ and the implicit assertion of a ‘Deus ex machina’ - is this not in fact a symptom of deep anxiety and implicitly an acknowledgement of the seeming (or indeed actual) totality of the systemic ideological victory of liberal-modernity across all possible domains of life and thought as related to the human subject?

The stronger probabilities of the years ahead appear dispiriting and dangerous, and more gravely, it is increasingly widely feared that the reservoir of historical possibility is in fact a mirage. Contemporary culture is pervaded by what might be characterised by a atmosphere of angst that reflects the seemingly terminal loss of ‘the future’. The future not as a continuation of some minimally recognizable form of social existence but as a locus of realisable alternatives. It is ironic that modernity, in its form of liberal-capitalism, should at length have ‘advanced’ to this. Familiar as the most revolutionary and dynamic mode of production in history, the culture arising within and from Enlightenment rationality (and its cardinal institutional expression in liberal-capitalist form) modernity has valorised the ‘practically attainable’ Earthly future as no prior one could ever have done.

We are all Whigs to some degree – notions of cyclical rhythms and modalities of existence have been overtaken and replaced by the linear optic – despite minor occasional set-backs (World Wars and the like) - things over the long term can only get better within our liberal cosmology. Ever more progress, wealth, comfort and freedom etc., in an unbounded and upward trajectory. Anything in the way of this is, ipso facto, reactionary and an impediment to a better tomorrow.

The theme of liberal-modernity was and is just this: an endless serial presentation (making present) of the ever better future. The ambition was not empty: the ideological and technological nexus of liberal-capitalism has remade and continues to remake the Earth and its populations. Birth, the market and then death as the only real and genuinely universal and democratic phenomena experienced by all. Market-exchange as the universal acid against all secondary ‘irrational’ distinctions or boundaries – everyone can do business. Indeed it is an obligation to do so without any prejudicial fears or favours. The dynamics arising from scarcity and the desire for plenty are genuinely transcultural – the inflationary necessity to commodify everything and everyone within its calculus and its radically inclusive embrace.

The market thus is the bearer of the project of the modern West, born under the sign of reason, mistress of universalism and of individuation, and long remained its last criterion of the real and rational.

To quote Juvin:

“The masters of suspicion shook our physical, psychic and moral certitudes; the market economy restored the principle of truth that we need to speak, to compare, to exchange - in a word, to live. Amidst abundance, peace, riches, it has been all that upheld reason in the world of ideologies, which contested but could not overthrow it, all that remained of logic between isolated individuals; all that united them, the only common language among those who no longer share anything, the only reason for acting among those who no longer have any other.”

Yet the accumulation of tomorrows is self-depleting. The imaginative landscapes of advanced, hyper-liberal super-modernity are now littered with stalled and abandoned futures. The doctrine of TINA – being within the cosmopolitan ‘global village’ as ontological fait accompli - is the never-ending mood music to this death of ‘the future’. Much modern metropolitan ‘high culture’ - or at least allegedly serious cultural forms - is but an aimless circulation of degraded forms of retro-chic. Alternatives, of any formulation, are only relics and illusions (that no-one can authentically believe in except the most hopelessly naive). The ideological and socio-cultural imagination radically attenuates accompanied by a farcical simulacrum of choice and debate before us. Our life-world languishes in an engulfing tsunami of banality, superficiality and cynicism.

So apocalypse itself becomes the last word – the ‘only’ possible escape route. As I have suggested before dystopian and utopian thinking are profoundly interconnected both psychologically and politically. Of what real value such impulses might be is a very open question indeed. Passively waiting for the ‘end times’ and their ‘revivifying’ qualities is an even worse form of anti-politics than liberalisms strong tendency to assert its own ‘apolitical’ status.

I’m glad you found something useful in the essay. As to the final part which you didn’t like, I don’t want to inculcate despair but a disaccommodation of the intellect. I have been calling for an effort to re-intellectualise WN for the last four years (by re-intellectualise I don’t mean re-state or even renew, but re-originate and replace). Naturally, no one listens. So over the next few years I will make some efforts in that direction myself, unfit for the task as I am.

I continue to believe that we have sufficient originative power to create a genuine social force, a revolutionary schwerpunckt attracting, energising, radicalising artists, musicians and film-makers, journalists, and, especially, the young. This is how to change the zeitgeist, and support our politicals in their quest. For heavens sake, we have everything on our side. History is granting us - you and me and all of us - the extraordinary privilege and opportunity to create. We are the people who must do this. There are no others. Well then, what is Tom and O’Meara doing with their tired, religious appeals to the totems of the fascist past. They’re not going to do it. Our intellectualism should lead this movement of ours forward, not anchor it to the failures of the past. Where are the free-thinking white men we need for this great task?

Liberal modernity is a bane and a nationalist reaction is only just and logical. But, thus far, reaction has not produced, and likely does not produce, viable politics - certainly not post-WW2. Therefore, an alternative source must be found, one upon which all the necessary claims can be made.

The only such source available, imo, is the well-spring of the European self. If this is true, and plenty of people don’t agree that it is, then our task is to weave a wearable political garment from it. So in this moment the discussion must be about positives rather than the negative of analysis.

The question comes back to you: What politics will replace liberalism and reform the agora of socio-political elements that feed off or are influenced by it, and which constitute the modern world?

I was going to ask some obvious questions in response to the concern of setting out a new, and inspiring way of life for Whites..

But a different perspective on the matter intervened:

While appeals to the exemplars of successful White individualism may provide clues as to how to proceed, it would seem those who are bothered most by the destruction of European peoples and ways of life may not always be the over-achievers at all (nor worthless losers, properly understood) - but in fact those Whites who’ve been marginalized precisely for their stubborn loyalty to Whites. These would be the ones more sensible as to the different, important “points” of Europeanness. Hence, to find this:

I continue to believe that we have sufficient originative power to create a genuine social force, a revolutionary schwerpunckt attracting, energising, radicalising artists, musicians and film-makers, journalists, and, especially, the young.

Wouldn’t it be best to have a movement compassionate for the insecurities of these people - advocating and supportive of their basic needs?

It seems to me, when appeals to the Nietszchean overman are made, all that does is heighten alienation and insecurity - the individual undaunted no matter what, impervious that he is, may not be very sensible, may not recognize his indebtedness to his people.

You’d be appealing to liberals by definition with such a model

I think rather that inspiring heroes can be made of those who question the value of athletes or achievers* in whatever realm who have unreasonably more than their share of women and ease. Good (or addictive) as John Coltrane and Jimi Hendrix music may be, aren’t our women more precious? Must we begrudge women to men who cannot tarry black aesthetics and other liberal valuations?

What ways of life could be useful and enjoyable to White men and women while sufficiently repellant or buffered from non-Whites? That spawned the question of, maybe its better to ask of whom the shoe pinches. Isn’t it these people the liberal and Jew virus must overcome?

More deeply, perhaps too deep, beyond essence, the right winger in me is still interested to know which genetics, particularly in White women, are most resistant to miscegenation? If there is a possibility for their cultivation. This may also provide some clues as to the existential question.. maybe not…but I’m curious about that anyway.

* Down to basics, concerning a human way of life, wouldn’t Aristotle ask what makes us distinctly human? In our situation he would ask, what makes us distinctly European? Taking the example of athletics he would say that horses can run faster, therefore achievement in foot speed is not exemplary of Whites etc.

I think liberal nationalism is the current human optimum - in greatest good, least harm terms - which is where we were headed before a combination of cultural PTSD from WW1 and hostile cultural tribal warfare knocked us off course. A non-perverted HBD-aware liberalism would be nationalist for entirely practical reasons imo. If so the route is through HBD - although even if successful i think it may be too late for some countries.

(Personally i don’t find KMac hope-sapping at all. I think identifying those traits gives clues on how to proceed.)

The big question isn’t it? Is the aim to totally replace the liberal order, or to severe attenuate its ideological space, to put it in its place so to speak? Where on the scale of reform/radical change is the alternative to be placed? There might be a relatively modest ‘holding’ position of a reformist type and cumulative radicalisation and a genuinely radical/revolutionary position.

But how to avoid the disastrous cul de sacs of the past?

My own gut instincts is that one looks for the weakest link in the ideological armor of one’s opponent that also has the maximal ‘moral capital’ for the neutral potential convert. Some ‘killer fact’ about genetics is not going to get the locals in the “Dog & Duck” up in arms. Politics isn’t really about convincing people with some very dry facts or technocratic facts etc., but rather about expressive narratives. What’s the story and why does it matter to Mr. Average?

One of liberal-modernity’s and indeed various other forms of Enlightenment rationalism (as express in doctrines such as ‘scientific socialism’) is the notion of more or less ‘limitless progress’. Unbounded appetites – the notion that there can ever be too much individual freedom, or too much profit etc., is almost an unmentionable, verboten, type of utterance.

And yet there are serious issues about exceeding limits and the long-term damage that may do. Serious environmental issues, serious issues of a global system of what is effectively endless speculation upon speculation. How much of this can we actually allow to go unchecked without stepping in to place limitations upon the activity? Can we really have the global economy leveraged at a 1 to 10 ratio eventually a 1 to 20 ratio or even a 1 to 100 ratio etc?

Globalisation as a phenomena (across the board) has to critiqued and challenged intelligently. Localism, particularity and the value of real forms of diversity against the mono-cultural homogenisation being offered up under liberalism. Be extremely critical of the EU – not in the dumb “The French are horrid and all eat garlic – yuk!” vibe of the risible UKIP but in a ‘small p’ progressive and intelligent way. That yes we want Europeans to sensibly cooperate but the EU is an utterly undemocratic elite project which is now pro-actively working against the interests of the ordinary people of Europe. Popularism when done correctly isn’t some type of political sin.

The question is just how many forms of toxic negative externalities can be dumped onto a society before we collectively decide “enough is enough”.

So sustainability and a politics of limits might be a very good ‘pivotal’ concept around which to build. And of course sustainability is really about communal interests and preventing individual ‘free-riding’. And any form of nationalism (even the weakest type) is ultimately a communitarian ideology with a group as its primary focus. So in-group solidarity is also a key concept but ideally without giving of the vibe that you would joyfully kill everyone on the outside of that in-group just of the sheer fun of it.

Think of this as the politics of oxytocin and in-group solidarity and out-group hostility. The love and trust that oxytocin promotes are not toward the world in general, just toward a person’s in-group – there are quite a few studies that suggest this is true and it that increased out-group hostility is the flip side to this dynamic. Now one fundamental category error that WNs seem to make is this “being white together is enough” and nothing more meme. As if that is the start and finishing point of in-group solidarity! What they fail to understand is that that might be true for them but they are extreme outliers in this regard. For example take the political amoeba aka Alex Linder – what does he offer? A toxic brand of racist hatred (“let’s scream nigger 24/7” and wish the Holocaust had been “done properly”) to the extreme right of Hitler it would seem and then beyond that he is channelling Ayn Rand on crack– and people wonder why that witches brew of crap doesn’t appeal to anyone but the relatively small number of people circulating around various cyber ‘echo-chambers’?

Mr. & Mrs. Average worry about their healthcare, their jobs, their kids education etc., so the ‘solidarity of race’ by itself is simply not enough to engage vast numbers of people (it might be a distant concern for them by they have other much more pressing priorities). That’s the brute truth. If one bundles an ensemble of social goods around the in-group or a sensibly maximalist notion of societal homogeneity then it is much more attractive to many more people for whom any ‘race question’ sensu stricto isn’t that important per se. On top of that intelligently formulated social democratic policies provide a space for ‘we’ type politics in a manner that no amount of totally liberal extremely individualistic ‘free-marketry’ can ever do.

Again if for example relative economic inequalities are reduced as a matter of public policy and that “quality of life” issues, on a collective basis are also policy priorities (affordable good-quality housing for all etc), then this too is about promoting the politics of oxytocin. Now it’s no good saying but the poorest white person in America lives like a King by historical standards! We are profoundly social creatures and we look around our social environment and compare ourselves to others (synchronically NOT diachronically).

Now lots of recent work suggests that the extent of a whole range of social pathologies decline as relative economic equality increases. Why? Because people feel far more “plugged into society”; they are are more active stakeholders in society across a whole range of issues. Therefore they do have much more to lose by not upholding those societal norms. Implicit in high levels of in-group solidarity across all public policy areas is the implicit message “we are a group” and “you personally are deeply valued and even loved by that group ”. People fight more fiercely for the things that they love the most and that they receive love from. The more “love” or in this case real-world solidarity - the greater and stronger the bond between people within the in-group.

Our collective human-capital together as a specific in-group is our greatest asset - we cannot afford to allow any of it to go to waste etc. We must create the enabling conditions for it to flourish in a sustainable way that builds in-group loyalty and sentiment across the broad spectrum of life together etc. It’s that old topic of an imaginative community based around an intra and inter-generational “moral economy”. The old liberal idea of maximal individual hedonism = maximal happiness has to to discredited. A human-centric welfare and development index rather than mere GDP. Eudaimonia and Aristotelian philia - quality of life as defined by loyalty to friends, family and community that requires virtue, relative equality and familiarity between those people.

As has been mentioned before why is it that “extremely progressive” - certainly by any US standard - nations like Denmark have had fairly ethnocentric political parties actually in national office? Look at it this way, if the politics of the in-group are bundled with a whole lot of not merely expressive goods but real-world goodies then it will appeal to a far broader constituency than otherwise. One cannot live psychologically or materially on ‘being white’ alone. Life isn’t that simple. WN obsessives seem not to appreciate that not everyone has the same all-consuming fixation as they do.

As someone mentioned the likes of Denmark/Iceland (in their best aspects) should be a good model for say the direction of travel of the countries of the UK to move towards – doing things the ‘American way’ either in using its ideological idioms or policy wise is about the dumbest thing I think any European could do.

I also think redefining our normative concepts of what justice and moral commitments are actually about and what they demand of us away from those found within liberal theory is very important too. I actually think a great deal of non-liberal, non-individualistic thought exists with European intellectual history but its reformulating into something attractive which seems like ‘common-sense’ but also that doesn’t pro-actively offend the intellect and ethical sentiments. A enormously large task but it’s probably a synthesis of various ideas and themes from wide range of non-liberal ideologies or tendencies. Ideological promiscuity should not in this case be a seen as a vice.

A staring point of mildly ethno-communtarian, social democratic and environmentalist type ideas with a smattering of conservative moral concerns (on vulgarisation of life in various cultural regards and matters of interpersonal conduct) would not be the worse in terms of putting together something that might actually have some broad appeal in various European nations (mixed with a strong anti-immigration/anti-multicultural agenda).

Obviously the Americans and other ‘usual suspects’ on here will mostly scream ‘blue murder’ etc., but the typical brand of idiocy displayed by a Beck of individualists is not my concern. In that sense the USA is such an ideological outlier that its internal political debates and idioms are of almost no positive value whatsoever to any European. Let alone they fact that the USA is by far the closest to achieving ‘post-Western’ status in comparison with nearly every other Western nation, so why should anyone else pay positive attention to such a ‘failed state’ on this matter? It’s like asking a narco-state for the tips on best practice with regard to anti-drugs policies.

Let’s be honest the USA already Brazil mark II. The prospect of the USA ever being again over 90%+ Euros asymptotically approaches zero. In many European nations the levels of and rate of demographic change isn’t nearly so bad; so at least stabilisation as an immediate goal might be possible.

What you seem incapable of grasping is that the impersonal, irreligious, modern state is the enemy of true group solidarity, that it promotes economic parasitism (aka “political rent-seeking” - the major “free-rider” problem in the West today) and the real Hobbesian “warre of all on all”, and that there was greater group ethnocultural solidarity in past times when a much lower portion of European GDPs was stolen by central states. You often emphasize empirical evidence; how do you deal with that latter fact?

What the great classical liberal tradition does have to teach is that freedom, esp the economic variety, is conducive to social harmony, just as bearing arms conduces to politeness and social peace. You have an incredibly attenuated appreciation for how free markets generate their own order, not to mention the vital role that entrepreneurial freedom, rooted in individual incentives for advancement, plays in both national prosperity and therefore national power. It is apt that you keep mentioning Denmark, a small place with few problems excepted those imported, but why not more capitalist (but also fairly successfully ethnocommunitarian - as much as Denmark) Switzerland?

You have this vision of a wee nation, racially homogeneous, surviving over time through inculcation and appeals to group solidarity, defense of heritage, etc (I think without a national church, such will ultimately fail, though I suppose the jury is still out on that particular issue). I’m not opposed to that vision, per se. But I think domestic socialism corrupts the people’s character, by underemphasizing personal responsibility and self-reliance, and actively encouraging rent-seeking (look at Britain as a paradigmatic example of how far a once extremely admirable national character can decline - you blame that decline on free markets??!! can you be serious?? UK’s cultural decline is mainly due to the rise of secularism, combined with the growth of the Vampire/Parasite State, which structurally encourages not only welfare based free-loading but the “entitlement mentality” which is central to the eurozone’s current crumbling, with the US not too far behind).

“So why should anyone else pay positive attention to such a ‘failed state’ on this matter? It’s like asking a narco-state for the tips on best practice with regard to anti-drugs policies.”

Not for the correctness of its philosophical underpinnings, but because there are a couple hundred million people of European descent there; a large percentage of whom could be fundamentally good people.

If nothing else, we can learn what not to do, where the system went wrong..

It seems to me, when appeals to the Nietszchean overman are made, all that does is heighten alienation and insecurity - the individual undaunted no matter what, impervious that he is, may not be very sensible, may not recognize his indebtedness to his people.

I have no idea why anyone would want to bounce around declaring himself the overman while acting in the required, of course, by no means slavish manner. Just the risk of upsetting the eponymous British working man and copping a firm right hook should be enough to dull the appetite for such tomfoolery. I mean, it always has in the past.

Also, I have this nagging suspicion that old Friedrich did not really mean to suggest that entire classes of people, and even entire peoples, should take to such annoying behaviour. What I think he was really trying to say, after his fashion, was that consciousness is intentional. Modulate that to attentional and Zarathustra may speak. Or something. I never liked Nietzsche.

I think rather that inspiring heroes can be made of those who question the value of athletes or achievers* in whatever realm who have unreasonably more than their share of women and ease.

No heroes, please. You’ll start CC off again.

Actually, at the end of days, philosophy shouldn’t have anything to do with any form of personality manipulation. We are living in an age of lies as it is. Let’s try it the other way.

what makes us distinctly European?

No thing. Europeans cannot help “being European”. You’ve just got to trust to nature and the object of care.

The big question isn’t it? Is the aim to totally replace the liberal order, or to severely attenuate its ideological space, to put it in its place so to speak?

Liberalism is a project. It’s end is the replacement of God the Creator with man the creator. That’s a totally unreasonable proposition, and I’m not sure how one can make an accommodation with it. But my essay does suggest a way in which freedom can be excised from it and accommodated in nationalist thought, and I commend it to you.

how to avoid the disastrous cul de sacs of the past?

By philosophising for a true model of Man.

So sustainability and a politics of limits might be a very good ‘pivotal’ concept around which to build.

No, you are tending to your own secret garden. More discipline is required of you than that.

A staring point of mildly ethno-communtarian, social democratic and environmentalist type ideas with a smattering of conservative moral concerns (on vulgarisation of life in various cultural regards and matters of interpersonal conduct) would not be the worse in terms of putting together something that might actually have some broad appeal ....

No again. Like Daniel and Leon you are being utilitarian here. Cleave to the truth of us and let the political chips fall where they may. They will fall in the right place, for all nationalist politics that are true in the sense that I mean must serve “the life inherent to us all”.

Wandrin, not to say that it is wrong, but I am wondering what countries you think its too late for?

To be honest i don’t want to think about that too much. I think pieces can be saved if the current death-cult can be brought down in time.

But yes, I agree and have long held that human biodiversity, in fact all bio-diversity and ecology is a sound philosophical basis for White Nationalism.

Yes, 100%.

It can and should be inspiring to the young, the hip and the thoughtful of any stripe, but that is not liberal - it is conservationist by definition.

I think “liberal” is a way of thinking based mostly on outbreeding (although with some psych-based mimicry through things like autism / aspergers). The “greatest good” way of thinking being a natural outgrowth of lower levels of ethnic nepotism (where “ethnic” in this context starts at the extended family scale) (nb lower levels of, not none).

The form that “liberal” thinking takes is a product of the circumstances of the time. If the research into the science of race hadn’t been diverted into the desert of the blank slate theory then (i believe) the “greatest good” would have been proved to be liberal nationalism and so “liberalism” i.e. the product of a way of thinking, would have become conservative but for scientific reasons rather than traditional reasons.

This shouldn’t be surprising if you believe traditional conservatism was created by slow unconscious evolution. If you believe that then the science of race should (mostly) confirm it.

So basically what would have happened if things had evolved naturally is:

1) Traditional conservatism based on cultural evolution and acceptance of tradition.
2) Outbred “liberal” thinking overthrowing traditional conservatism because on the surface it wasn’t based on anything other than tradition.
3) “Liberal” enquiry into the science of race proving there were evolutionary reasons for most of traditional conservatism.
4) Traditional conservatism based on science.

When the government of Argentina defaulted on its debt at the end of 2001 and then devalued its currency a few weeks later, it was all doom-mongering in the Anglophone media. The devaluation would cause inflation to spin out of control, the country would face balance of payments crises from not being able to borrow, the economy would spiral downward into deeper recession. Then, between 2002 and 2011, Argentina’s real GDP grew by about 90%, the fastest in the hemisphere. Employment is now at record levels, and both poverty and extreme poverty have been reduced by two-thirds. Social spending, adjusted for inflation, has nearly tripled. All this is probably why Cristina Kirchner was re-elected last October in a landslide victory.

Of course this success story is rarely told, mostly because it involved reversing many of the failed neoliberal policies – that were backed by Washington and its International Monetary Fund – that brought the country to ruin in its worst recession of 1998-2002. Ignorance cultivated in the ‘right places’ is certainly useful for some, yes?

Certainly our own chinless wonder George Osborne seems uniquely incompetent and ignorant of his brief, even by the staggering low standards of British political life and is failing his own stated policy goals in a spectacular fashion. Reading too much Hayek must really seriously rot the brain. Not that he much to begin with (maybe he’s a fan of Rand?).

Oh and I noticed this in election season. Mitt Romney has been telling anecdotes about his father; most strikingly, when George Romney was once asked about the idea that “rugged individualism” was the key to America’s success, he snapped back, “It’s nothing but a political banner to cover up greed.” – but probably not bad greed of ‘socialists’ obviously but rather the good virtuous greed of the real-life Gordon Gekko types and Goldman Sachs variety. Really though why should such heroic figures have to cover up anything?

Good God! Good God! Good God!!! I am going mad, I am shrieking with rage, the GF is cowering in the kitchen, I am tearing out what little hair I have left!! I am ready to %#@%$#$#$$#$#^$@@%^#$...

When the government of Argentina defaulted on its debt at the end of 2001 and then devalued its currency a few weeks later, it was all doom-mongering in the Anglophone media. The devaluation would cause inflation to spin out of control, the country would face balance of payments crises from not being able to borrow, the economy would spiral downward into deeper recession. Then, between 2002 and 2011, Argentina’s real GDP grew by about 90%, the fastest in the hemisphere. Employment is now at record levels, and both poverty and extreme poverty have been reduced by two-thirds. Social spending, adjusted for inflation, has nearly tripled. All this is probably why Cristina Kirchner was re-elected last October in a landslide victory. (Lister)

Could you learn some fucking economics please? Just a tiny, little bit? Why not read Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson? A bit boring, to be sure, but at least it gets its readers thinking about the effects of scarcity, and how economics explains market coordination.

Re Argentina, you are just plain empirically wrong (really, please stop getting your economics understanding from The Guardian or The Nation):

Perhaps the most hackneyed contemporary example Keynesians and monetarists offer to illustrate the “merits” of a devaluation and of the abandonment of a fixed rate is the case of Argentina following the bank freeze (“corralito”) that took place beginning in December of 2001. This example is seriously erroneous for two reasons. First, at most, the bank freeze is simply an illustration of the fact that a fractional-reserve banking system cannot possibly function without a lender of last resort (Huerta de Soto 2012 [1998], 785–786). Second, following the highly praised devaluation, Argentina’s per capita GDP fell from 7,726 dollars in 2000 to 2,767 dollars in 2002, thus losing two-thirds of its value. This 65 percent drop in Argentinian income and wealth should give serious pause to all those who nowadays are clumsily and violently demonstrating, for example in Greece, to protest the relatively much smaller sacrifices and drops in prices involved in the healthy and inevitable internal deflation that the discipline of the euro is requiring. Furthermore, all the patter about Argentina’s “impressive” growth rates, of over 8 percent per year beginning in 2003, should impress us very little if at all, when we consider the very low starting point after the devaluation, as well as the poverty, paralysis, and chaotic nature of the Argentinian economy, where one-third of the population has ended up depending on subsidies and government aid; the real rate of inflation exceeds 30 percent; and scarcity, restrictions, regulations, demagoguery, the lack of reforms, and government control (and recklessness) have become a matter of course (Gallo 2012). Along the same lines, Pierpaolo Barbieri states, “I find truly incredible that serious commentators like economist Nouriel Roubini are offering Argentina as a role model for Greece” (Barbieri 2012).

This was from an EXCELLENT article on the euro (but also teaching much else about monetary economics), which I have URGED the closed minds around here to consider:

The Argntine option is the best of both evils. The lesser evil. Greece in its present condition is hopelessly doomed to economic extinction.The Euro is its hanging rope—- like it will be for the rest—to continue on it present course is only squeezing the noose tighter and tighter.
The Argentine model, as offered by Rubini is a much more appropriate medication to negotiate the rapids of economic bankruptcy. The conditions of life in Argentine improved and were comparatively much better than before the default.

The reasons for the success? Paying workers with small-denomination government bonds or currencies they can use to pay for Power, Taxes, Medical and Licenses; social currency; barter; reducing scarcity of money:

The only one embarrassing himself whenever economics pops up is you. That’s because you simply assert that you know more than anyone else, post a couple of links, assure everyone that those are “the correct views,” recommend everyone educate themselves, and leave it at that. What you manifestly do not do is stick around to actually debate the issues.

Well, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you don’t find that embarrassing. If it were me, though, I sure would. (People can think what they want about me, but “he dodges the hard questions” isn’t something they can honestly say.)

“Well, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you don’t find that embarrassing. If it were me, though, I sure would. (People can think what they want about me, but “he dodges the hard questions” isn’t something they can honestly say.)”

How about are you part Jewish? Sorry, Silver. You don’t have to answer that, but kind of set yourself up and I just couldn’t resist. LOL

It seems to me, when appeals to the Nietszchean overman are made, all that does is heighten alienation and insecurity - the individual undaunted no matter what, impervious that he is, may not be very sensible, may not recognize his indebtedness to his people.

I have no idea why anyone would want to bounce around declaring himself the overman while acting in the required, of course, by no means slavish manner. Just the risk of upsetting the eponymous British working man and copping a firm right hook should be enough to dull the appetite for such tomfoolery. I mean, it always has in the past.

Ok, but I think my point was that a little more humanitarian outreach (I understand Golden Dawn is doing some of this to positive effect; soup kitchens and so on) might have more popular appeal; not necessarily that getting uppity with the gnarly English working man doesn’t effect countervailing manliness.

Also, I have this nagging suspicion that old Friedrich did not really mean to suggest that entire classes of people, and even entire peoples, should take to such annoying behaviour. What I think he was really trying to say, after his fashion, was that consciousness is intentional. Modulate that to attentional and Zarathustra may speak. Or something.

Gotcha. I understand that Nietzsche is nuanced, but I was rather indulging a facile characterization of the “overman” as an individualist not much fretting over consequences for others. Rather the “gamers’” archetype of the day.

I never liked Nietzsche.

He’s not my favorite either. From my view, I consider him toxic (something other than ecological); but in fact, Zarathustra was quite a read – a continuous experience of new questions being asked and flourishing into answers…
“I think rather that inspiring heroes can be made of those who question the value of athletes or achievers* in whatever realm who have unreasonably more than their share of women and ease.”

No heroes, please. You’ll start CC off again.

Indeed. What I am trying to suggest - viz., attention to ordinary needs rather than superhuman heroism - might be better off without heroes. It may, however, require its own romanticization and reward for a deed well done, to proactively counterbalance the inevitable counterbalances of striving too high, by instituting valuations of these more ordinary requirements right up there with terms of Actualization as transcendence (not that we’d do without some of that, either). Rather focusing on understanding the importance of everyday needs and requirements for the people; perhaps sacralizing these deeds of their fulfillment, whatever it may take to institute their valuation.

Actually, at the end of days, philosophy shouldn’t have anything to do with any form of personality manipulation. We are living in an age of lies as it is. Let’s try it the other way.
what makes us distinctly European?

No thing. Europeans cannot help “being European”. You’ve just got to trust to nature and the object of care.

I can understand wanting to get as radical as possible is your project (I look for this too, for example in genetic questions and distinct behavioral patterns); but surely there are worse or better ways for it to go once fairly untrammeled, such that this corporeality cannot be tweaked just a little, informed where conducive by our uniquely European history; and likely our unique plight itself, among antagonistic and indifferent people, in an existential way, also suggesting some guiding rules as to the way forward to a more healthy and distinct Europeanness* ?

It seems letting mere nature take care, letting the chips fall where they may is a bit risky. Surely certain outgroups are not going to be without their rhetoric to steer things their way. With that, we can in fact (unfortunately) breed with all other peoples on earth.

MacDonald has advised this too – uncovering the constructual fallacies that obscure European nature and letting the chips fall where they may. However, this is going a bit too far toward foundationalism for me. I would contend with the example that enough of our women are miscegenating that it is not necessarily unnatural, nor good - therefore nature’s chips falling where they may is not necessarily good, the quantitative and qualitative losses may be too great in our attentive estimation, to forego ramped-up rhetoricizing of our own.

* Choose a category of European if one would wrongly accuse me of advocating blending.

Well it looks at last we may have a warm and sunny day or two here in the Isles, hence the traditional week or so of British summer can at last get going. I’m rather enjoying my vacation time at the moment, catching up on my leisure reading etc., one book I’m reading is “Red Plenty” a rather fascinating “alternative/counterfactual history” of the post-war Soviet Union, with one of the novels key historical figures being the only economist from the USSR to have won the Noble Prize for economics for his work on. . . whisper it. . . optimal resource allocation and planning.

In the ghastly menagerie of right-liberaldom – the Lockes, the Hayeks, the Nozicks, the Rands et al., and their latter day followers one wonders what sort of social environment such people existing within and how they formulated their basic ideas? After all we semi-domesticated primates don’t really need exultations or encouragements with regard to selfish, self-serving or egocentric behaviour do we? I think we are probably capable of enough to go around on our ‘default’ setting. So praising such tendencies as the most wondrous thing imaginable seems like an act of supererogation (not in the ethical sense obviously). Perhaps liberalism, the culture it fosters and the values it most cherishes can be pithily summerised as supererogatory narcissism?

Just on the topic of American politics I was watching a couple of clips of Christopher Hitchens – a man of some eloquence sadly no longer with us. Here he is offering his thought on Reagan (amongst other political figures) with what can only be described as an oleaginous creature from The American Spectator. Link below – check it out it’s quite amusing.

The only one embarrassing himself whenever economics pops up is you. That’s because you simply assert that you know more than anyone else, post a couple of links, assure everyone that those are “the correct views,” recommend everyone educate themselves, and leave it at that. What you manifestly do not do is stick around to actually debate the issues.

Well, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you don’t find that embarrassing. If it were me, though, I sure would. (People can think what they want about me, but “he dodges the hard questions” isn’t something they can honestly say.)(Silver)

Absolutely false re the last sentence. I debated you at considerable length sometime earlier this year re your nonsense about economic growth being greater under Keynesian regimes than (more) free enterprise ones (your implication being that Keynesianism - which you never spell out concretely, as I would blow you out of the water, without any need for my formulating original arguments on the subject, as the work’s been done by others - is not necessarily economically deleterious). Actually, you routinely dodge the hard questions, substituting a lot of ‘opinionating’ about how people think about race for facing the serious issues, which pertain to the ethics and strategies of racial survival, and the facts of racial differences (wrt ontological nationalism, I think there’s actually less there than meets the eye; mostly a lot of needlessly if not deliberately obscurantist and obfuscating jargon).

State any economic proposition that is not grounded in free enterprise as taught by the Austrians, and I will debate you. But if someone makes asinine empirical claims, what is wrong with posting a relevant refutational link?

Why don’t you read Huerta de Soto’s magnum opus, and try to offer some (idiotic) rebuttal?

The work is utterly comprehensive and brilliant. What could I possibly add to it? Why would I even try?

When I make comments here, 99% of the time they represent my own thought. I’m trying to advance political thinking (or just sounding off). But wrt a subject about which there is much information available, why should I rehash what others have written, probably better than I could? My time is limited and therefore valuable. Easier to post.

To compare yourself (or for the ridiculous Truther/Birther/DigiBreivik Richards to compare himself) favorably to a giant like Prof de Soto is just laughable. The difference between me and too many others here is that of the formally elite educated v the (at absolute best, or my being forensically most generous) self-educated. Oh yes, it’s perfectly plain who here has struggled through serious courses of study, and who is the free-floating autodidact.

In a sense, all truly educated persons are autodidacts. But very few people are really capable of it. There is great, lifelong value to completing a rigorous course of study. It instills intellectual discipline, something all too lacking here.

Anyway, to reiterate, I post links re economic topics because I have nothing original to say on these matters, and others have said what needs to be said more precisely and elegantly than I could. What you and others here need to do is actually read the links I supply, and then attempt to refute the logic contained therein (at which point I can then rebut your particular errors).

Yes very interesting. I’d say it’s Britain shorn of its political-historical manifestation and focused on it’s literary and cultural manifestation - which is largely global now. So you could take it either way.

From his opening ceremony it would certainly appear that he’s none too fond of featuring “the new british” in his extraveganza. What to make of this?

There are blacks in those pictures.

I checked it out on TV for a few minutes. They were doing some type of performance thing to represent the industrial revolution, and I noticed there were blacks and dusky types. There were blacks in Victorian era suits and top hats and blacks among the performers representing the factory workers.

How about are you part Jewish? Sorry, Silver. You don’t have to answer that, but kind of set yourself up and I just couldn’t resist. LOL

That’s only a hard question in the minds of binary absolutist WNs (in/out, white/non-white), who are typically revulsionists too (knowledge or mere suspicion of jew or black admixture, no matter how distant, fills them with a deep sense of revulsion, which is one reason why “who is white?” debates take on such a life-or-death character). To my way of thinking race is significantly more complex than that and that degree of revulsion is never necessary. Anyway, my answer is: not to my knowledge. But it wouldn’t surprise me to learn I was.

Haller,

Absolutely false re the last sentence. I debated you at considerable length sometime earlier this year re your nonsense about economic growth being greater under Keynesian regimes than (more) free enterprise ones (your implication being that Keynesianism - which you never spell out concretely, as I would blow you out of the water, without any need for my formulating original arguments on the subject, as the work’s been done by others - is not necessarily economically deleterious).

Typical Hallerian bluster, lol. Look, how can it not be embarrassing to doubt that the American economy has grown since 1950 (or 1913, maybe), eh? It’s not as if you doubt it for any good reason, you doubt it for silly Austrian reasons like “GDP counts broken windows being replaced.” Right, Haller. That’s all that American economic growth has consisted of in the past fifty years: breaking and replacing windows.

And why in the world should I be the one to “concretely spell out Keynsianism”? I’ve never even considered myself a Keynesian. That is simply what you started calling me (some kind of ultimate insult in your book, I guess, the equivalent of a WN’s “Jew!”). I didn’t mind it because in a loose sense it’s been a Keynesian world, and I prefer to focus on the policies that have been pursued rather than on what label is slapped on them.

Anyway, this isn’t an economics blog, so there’s no reason to pull out all the stops in attempting to prove one’s economic views are correct. It’s primarily a matter of respecting the fact that other people believe they have good reasons for thinking differently about economics. You don’t respect that fact. You crap all over it. Others aren’t blameless, of course. They usually start it, with a total dismissal of the value of capitalist enterprise, which only provokes you to respond in equal measure.

Actually, you routinely dodge the hard questions, substituting a lot of ‘opinionating’ about how people think about race for facing the serious issues, which pertain to the ethics and strategies of racial survival, and the facts of racial differences (wrt ontological nationalism, I think there’s actually less there than meets the eye; mostly a lot of needlessly if not deliberately obscurantist and obfuscating jargon).

Well, it’s a matter of first things first, isn’t it. How people think about issues shapes what responses they consider appropriate (or even consider at all). Even if I’m wrong though, I fail to see how this amounts to “dodging” anything (evading it, refusing to answer etc).

How about are you part Jewish? Sorry, Silver. You don’t have to answer that, but kind of set yourself up and I just couldn’t resist. LOL

That’s only a hard question in the minds of binary absolutist WNs (in/out, white/non-white), who are typically revulsionists too (knowledge or mere suspicion of jew or black admixture, no matter how distant, fills them with a deep sense of revulsion, which is one reason why “who is white?”

Not really. There are some absolutists with regard to White purity, but I am not one of them and I believe many and perhaps most WN’s are not. I believe that overwhelmingly native European satisfies most peoples, including WN’s, definition of White.

Now, speaking more for myself, that definition works for me too. However, with regard to Jewish admixture in particular, it has been my experience that people who are 1/4 Jewish, if not being out-rightly on board with liberal Jewish agendas are unable to oppose them. That is why I thought to ask. Prior to experience, my natural predisposition would be to say, you are 1/8 Jewish, so what? I hate to say it, now I wonder about even that - wasn’t Lenin 1/8?

But still, no, it is rather an interesting and problematic area - both the ultra purists and the ones who are too slovenly with regards to the gray areas can give me the willies.

Let alone people who have small fractions (say less than 5% of something), as a hypothesis, going on a case by case basis, I would not necessarily banish from participation with the White Nation people who are 1/4 Asian/middle Eastern (though I might out-rightly, in the case of Jews): though they would have to be a part of some sort of quarantining category; while that category would allow for a certain level of more recently blended White/non-White people, it should have a policy encouraging their moving toward fuller native Europeanness in breeding practices; it would also coincide with the maintenance of more pure categories. Dealing with people who are 1/2 European/Asian can be complicated as well for WN’s - not as simple for WN’s even if they would want it to be - what to do with halfs of this kind and their reflexive effects on purer Whites? Alienating them farther and not distinguishing them from Africans might just create a more compelling reason and place for betrayal, a haven and bulwark for mudsharks as they are welcomed into a place abandoned altogether by WN. Perhaps halfs of this kind might be dealt with more as a potentially allied non-White nation. Perhaps that is naiive, but again, both purists and muddlers can give me the willies. Nevertheless, it is not the simple matter for Whites (even for those who might want it to be simple) that your straw man argument would indicate.

....debates take on such a life-or-death character). To my way of thinking race is significantly more complex than that and that degree of revulsion is never necessary. Anyway, my answer is: not to my knowledge. But it wouldn’t surprise me to learn I was

Thank you for answering that.

Now then, it seems that on the other hand, you are doing a good job of holding up to the binary straw men arguments of those who would characterize anybody who questions capitalism as a pure good, at least as it is abstractly laid out, not necessarily in its crony practice, as a simple and incorrigible “socialist.”

While I will stick with the term White Left for its organizing powers, I am not quite so sure how I’ll deal with the word socialist just yet - but for convenience sake I will probably reject it as it falls easy prey to oversimplification and mischaracterization of economic terms when I am concerned with social matters. Those who cast that word as an aspersion have invariable done so with its having a vastly simpler and different characterization from what I mean, along with a purpose very different from what I would agree to. They want the church to do the humanitarian outreach? Then let it be the Church of The 14 Words, not one that sees everybody as being the same.

I appreciate the fact that you distinguish free enterprise from the prevailing models, as I would wish to maintain free enterprise as much as possible, within reason. And social re-distribution can be kept to a minimum (including reasonable requirements as well). It can be more-so as well, in a particular community, for all I care. My primary reason for speaking in socialistic terms where I may appear to is on behalf of the social criteria of European folks, the White class. It is not especially for economic reasons. While those matters are important, no doubt, it is racial classification that I want to re-organize - which means dealing with both Capitalist-economic obliviousness to race and the kind of Marxist singular focus on economics, which is equally oblivious to race (except for Jews as they act behind the curtain on behalf of themselves and their revolutionary victimizing groups).

I will not be commenting much anymore. I owe GW a book review, but otherwise I have to go on ‘sabbatical’. I tore some cartilage in my knee a few weeks ago playing tennis, and have just been informed that I need surgery, and will be having it in a couple weeks (hey, one bright spot: I live in America, pre-Obamacare/socialized medicine, so I can actually go from diagnosis to operation in a few weeks; in UK, let’s see, I’d be hobbling around for what - 6 months before I could get my MRI, and then what - another 6 mos until the surgery? Socialism - hip hip hooraaaayyyyy!!! Let’s make the entire economy look like the Post Office - Yeah, baby!!).

More significantly, my very old dad, a proud WW2 vet (Pacific), looks like he’s finally dying. He took a turn for the worse last week, and looked awful today, so this could be it. I’m not in much of a commenting mood these days.

From his opening ceremony it would certainly appear that he’s none too fond of featuring “the new british” in his extraveganza. What to make of this?

An incoherent, chaotic mess with no sense of style or tradition. A deaf percussionist who is supposedly talented but just struck me as batshit crazy. A dance number memorializing the NHS. A choir of deaf (is there some epidemic of deafness up there?) children in pajamas, most of whom didn’t really appear to be singing. And yes, an extended dance skit featuring an Englishwoman and her negro husband and their mulatto daughter hooking up with a mook. To the extent there was any theme, it might be considered a paean to the passing of the Industrial Revolution and the Golden Dawn of consumer electronics and mixed-race hookups.

The other thing that struck me was how god-awfully “unhip” it was. I could imagine Daniel Boyle laboriously pondering, “How shall I connect with Britain’s Younger Generation?” Hint: they don’t give a shit about Mr. Bean or the music you listened to when you were their age. Don’t even try.

And the other thing I noticed, the Royals looked absolutely grim thru the whole thing. If William and Kate ever so much as cracked a smile I don’t think the cameras caught it. I wonder if they were thinking about calling in the RAF.

In sum, yes Britain is totally fucked and just needs to be consumed with fire.

Our fathers’ generation was a damn sight better than our own, and I shutter at the West’s future when I contemplate the youngest generation. Most of my GF’s friends are white and around her age, and, even though this is LA/OC, I still am dismayed at what douchebags they are. Sadly, I don’t think CA is becoming more like Texas: I think Texas and the Midwest are becoming more like CA (and I’m not referring to Mexicans; I’m talking about the racial character of the whites).

Only WN leading towards racial separatism can save us. And it will be a smallish part of us that’s saved - most whites seem to have inbred douchbagism to one degree or another.

.
..
Hi Leon, I could not stand anywhere in America anymore - So-Cal must be an especially pointed hell. White traitors, antagonists and indifference are among the most discouraging things to be confronted with. We might take some solace in the fact that many young people’s opinions are ostensible – many of us have changed 180 on some views. I believe we’ll do your father a favor as we continue to work on White separatism, for whom it may concern.

I will not be commenting much anymore. I owe GW a book review, but otherwise I have to go on ‘sabbatical’. I tore some cartilage in my knee a few weeks ago playing tennis, and have just been informed that I need surgery, and will be having it in a couple weeks (hey, one bright spot: I live in America, pre-Obamacare/socialized medicine, so I can actually go from diagnosis to operation in a few weeks; in UK, let’s see, I’d be hobbling around for what - 6 months before I could get my MRI, and then what - another 6 mos until the surgery? Socialism - hip hip hooraaaayyyyy!!! Let’s make the entire economy look like the Post Office - Yeah, baby!!).

More significantly, my very old dad, a proud WW2 vet (Pacific), looks like he’s finally dying. He took a turn for the worse last week, and looked awful today, so this could be it. I’m not in much of a commenting mood these days.

But carry on all others.

We all have our ups and downs. If you’re going to position yourself on the “racial right” it’s even more important than usual to adopt the attitude of whatever doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger.

Just been sampling some Telegraph comment threads, mostly about the Olympics of course. Surprise surprise!

Some of the posters ask perplexingly why are there so many frenzied negative comments being bandied about at random, a goodly few making little sense and nothing to do with the games at all.

When I learned that London had won the bid for the 2012 games back in 2005 I realised that multiculturalism would be the poster boy theme throughout (and beyond) the duration of the games.

What a guilt-feast the BBC would have, prostrating themselves before a World audience in confirmation of proof and commitment to destroying white Britain.

So I decided come the day I would be an absent viewer in silent protest.

Why are so many commenter’s posting such vitriolic nonsense? They are incensed, they are incensed because they’re reduced to throwing rotten eggs and tomatoes at the sycophant authors and establishment, and all the other useful idiots enthralled in the Olympic circus.

True to my resolution I’ve so far managed to steer clear of the television, but I must admit there’s along way to go yet.

I wonder idly how come in today’s universal ideological hegemony of relativism and non discrimination of cultural equality can Britain host such a festival of eliteness? With gold medals to boot! They tell us we’re all equal, we’re all the same, I’m supposed to be able to run a 100 metres in the same time as the ‘Bolt’. Beats me how they can achieve such equality of outcome?

Liberal Britain hates itself, so how can they have a festival of Britain’s culture and greatness? The media is very picky when it comes to using nationhood as a stick and a carrot for its people. Left good, Right evil.

...that is to say, it is questionable whether the White race/native European, is sufficiently self corrective to maintain and advance itself, absent a concept of enemy rhetoric and its own necessary rhetoric - which is somewhat detached from empiricism. Particularly given the fact that we can interbreed with other races and that they are advocating themselves with and beyond the mere facts where it serves their interest.

The hermeneutic turn, with its liberation from “mere facticity” on behalf of our White group interests (hidden from sheer empirical observation as they can be, in protracted concept), is imperative.

Just the risk of upsetting the eponymous British working man and copping a firm right hook should be enough to dull the appetite for such tomfoolery.

Meh. A roundhouse punch too easily avails itself to a perry and thrust; especially when delivered by a Chav against the Aryan Superman.

No heroes, please.

The hero properly constituted strides onto the field when needed and quietly walks away once the battle is won. Yes, his heroism is reactive. It is not a will to a hypertrophied, top-heavy, and therefore unstable, vision of masculinity. This, however hardly diminishes the necessity of such reaction at needed times.